The key is things are interesting if they’re interesting to someone. The fact you can break a stick and observe in detail in real time at a minute level better

The key is things are interesting if they’re interesting to someone. The fact you can break a stick and observe in detail in real time at a minute level better than a computer is very interesting to many people. Botanists, biologists, material scientists, architects, industrial engineers, etc. It’s just not interesting to you. Likewise even contrived quantum experiments like this aren’t interesting to many people. They’re not practical. But they’re profoundly interested to people interested in quantum computing. They’re milestones on a roadmap. There will and are things computer computers won’t do better than classical computers and there are things in reality neither will simulate, and those things are interesting to someone. In fact I think this is a crucial part of basic science- EVERYTHING is interesting. Even the lack of something interesting is certainly interesting to a psychologist :-)